- From: Christian Kuhtz <chk@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 97 18:35:59 -0700
- To: Mark Shuttleworth <marks@thawte.com>
- Cc: Christian Kuhtz <chk@gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@consensus.com>, Tim Hudson <tjh@mincom.com>, ietf-tls@w3.org, ssl-talk@netscape.com
Hmm, I thought we are here to provide good and real-life engineering and not just marketing driven quick fix kludges. The allocation of https and nntps, IMHO, sucks because of its poor design considerations. We cannot let this junk go any further. Isn't it *our* job (as in IETF) to provide an efficient, workable and well engineered solution for the "world"? I agree with Mark, time-to-market is a constraint, no doubt. But time-to-market will hit a brickwall if we simply slap SSL ports for every existing non-SSL port into our assigned numbers. We need long term thinking instead of short term bogus. In essence, we need something that just simply presents a generic adapter piece for SSL service in a connection negotiation. I have not had much time to look at the FTP spec, and frankly, don't have the pointer anymore. But it can't be that hard and we *have* to do it. Can someone send me a pointer via private eMail? Thanks. Regards, Chris
Received on Thursday, 6 February 1997 05:43:05 UTC